Samsung actually made out quite well in this case, even though they lost. The damages awarded are a drop in the bucket, and they managed to cost Apple many months worth of litigation time during which they sold more phones.

Fundamentally, most of these patents are bullshiat that should never have been patented. And the US *has* been somewhat crooked and protectionist in the way it's handled this regarding the ITC. Did Samsung "copy" elements from the iPhone, particularly early on in the development of smartphones? Sure, but Jobs loved "Great artists steal." more than just about anyone else. Half the stuff Apple has accused Samsung of would be positively catastrophic if it applied to other industries.

Hamburgers? Nope, patented by some guy in the early 1900's with the recipe considered a "trade secret".

If this kind of patent nonsense had been going on in the era of the railroad tycoons and other old, big money barons, you can bet that patents would be in the same state that copyright is now thanks to Disney. Extended indefinitely, applied to everything, and good for almost nobody but the lawyers.

Apple got reamed this time.They went from a very large victory to precisely nothing. A couple of trivial patents which any sane person would find risible enfoced against a handful of obsolete handsets to the tune of pocket change.

Funny thing is that I was going to make a comment about "jury of your peers" and was researching the quote. I found that:

1. The Constitution only guarantees jury trials for criminal matters.2. No where does it state a "jury of your peers." Only that you must be tried by a jury composed of impartial jurors from the jurisdiction that the crime was committed in.

This means that professional juries would in fact be Constitutional, as long as certain limits were applied and that juries could be abolished for civil trials entirely.

One day in March 2011, cars carrying investigators from Korea's anti-trust regulator pulled up outside a Samsung facility in Suwon, about 25 miles south of Seoul. They were there ready to raid the building, looking for evidence of possible collusion between the company and wireless operators to fix the prices of mobile phones.

Before the investigators could get inside, security guards approached and refused to let them through the door. A standoff ensued, and the investigators called the police, who finally got them inside after a 30-minute delay. Curious about what had been happening in the plant as they cooled their heels outside, the officials seized video from internal security cameras. What they saw was almost beyond belief.

Upon getting word that investigators were outside, employees at the plant began destroying documents and switching computers, replacing the ones that were being used - and might have damaging material on them - with others.

Make sure to read the bits about Samsung's pleasant little habit of bribing government prosecutors as well.

One day in March 2011, cars carrying investigators from Korea's anti-trust regulator pulled up outside a Samsung facility in Suwon, about 25 miles south of Seoul. They were there ready to raid the building, looking for evidence of possible collusion between the company and wireless operators to fix the prices of mobile phones.

Before the investigators could get inside, security guards approached and refused to let them through the door. A standoff ensued, and the investigators called the police, who finally got them inside after a 30-minute delay. Curious about what had been happening in the plant as they cooled their heels outside, the officials seized video from internal security cameras. What they saw was almost beyond belief.

Upon getting word that investigators were outside, employees at the plant began destroying documents and switching computers, replacing the ones that were being used - and might have damaging material on them - with others.

Make sure to read the bits about Samsung's pleasant little habit of bribing government prosecutors as well.

I was going to say, if anyone knows about rigging legal and political systems, it's Samsung. Their entire existence is based upon it.

TheGogmagog:So does this mean Samsung phones won't be available or just that they pay damages and carry on raking in the cash?

Likely it means they'll have to $XXX to Apple for every phone sold, which will just increase the cost of the phone by $(XXX * 1.5). Hey, as long as we have to raise the price anyway, let's widen the profit margin at the same time and blame it on Apple. Samsung's stock goes up, it's win-win-win! (none of those are for the consumer, consumer still loses)

Ahh, the Samsung fanboy butthurt. The verdict was nothing. Samsung copied on purpose and thought they get away with it. It was a small price for a willful patent violation (I'm not saying it should have been patentable, but it was there). Move on.